In State v. Parker, 317 Ore. 225, 855 P.2d 636, 639 (Or. 1993), the Oregon Supreme Court resolved the conflict of whether the trial court erred in permitting the defendant's expert to testify via telephone. There, the defendant was indicted for driving under the influence of intoxicants and for breaching the duty of a reasonable and careful driver. Id. at 637.
The defendant motioned for a continuance because his initial expert was unavailable for trial. Id. at 639. The court denied the motion, but permitted the telephone testimony from another expert witness. Id.
The defendant averred that the court's denial was prejudicial because he could not present demeanor evidence. Parker, 855 P.2d at 639.
The Oregon court determined that the defendant had obtained three continuances and had adequate time to prepare for expert testimony. Id. As a result, the loss of demeanor evidence was not material, so there was no abuse of discretion. See id.